How Many Racists Does It Take to Screw in a Lightbulb?

[SnowFire]

By default, we are racists.

And who cares? I don't care if my subconcious or something is racist. I'm not, with I being my conscious, non-default self.

I realize you may have meant this in a slightly different context, but this is something that always annoys me. It especially comes up in discussions of the poisonous aspects of gendered language (man instead of person, etc.). I have no doubt that things like that might generate misleading assumptions in our unconcious- that the secretary will be a woman, the fireman a man, etc. It's just that I don't care, because my conscious self doesn't believe in that, so I see no particular need to clean up the English language.

Edit: Needless to say, I came up Colorblind on that poll, but I could have said that before without need of a poll.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ramo
Evidence for this assertion, please.

I think two things need to be pointed out:
1. The current inhabitants of Europe (a branch of the Indo-Europeans), with several exceptions (Basques, Finns, etc.), are originally from Eastern Anatolia.

Well, I think you are skating on very thin ice here. There are innumerable theories of the origins of the Indo-Europeans, but very few of them posit an Eastern Anatolian origin for the Indo-Europeans. Even the definition of the origin of the Indo-Europeans is pretty tricky. I would say that it is the people or peoples who spoke Indo-European just prior to it's initial surviving fragmentation. Of course you could go further back into pre-history and attempt to trace the origins of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, which in a sense is still tracing the origins of the Indo-Europeans, and in any event it's very unlikely that you could really discern the language variation through the only tools available, which are archeology of a pre-literate society.

A more likely but by no means definitive location for the original more or less cohesive Indo-European language to have been born is the area East of the Caspian Sea or the Pontic Steppe. This is all heavy theorizing of course, any definitive statement on the matter like you make above is completely unsupportable, especially since there are very good reasons to think that the Celts, Germans, Balts and Slavs (ie the folks who make up the majority of Europes population today) lived for a long while in close proximity to one another, and that their initial appearances on the historic stage place them far from Eastern Anatolia which was the domain of another earlier split off branch of the family.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Guynemer
And I'm pretty sure that "call a spade a spade" comes from the derrogatory meaning of the word, not from the conventional definitions. I don't remember where I heard that, but I remember learning that somewhere. I was actually going to post something about his choice of phrase, but you beat me to it.

Er, OK. I did a search on google, and found 3000 instances of the phrase. A further refinement of the search including the word 'origin' turned up this gem from a forum dealing with the 2000 election, and obviously veering off-topic:

Hey, you illiterate ****, the phrase "calling a spade a spade" has nothing to do with your racial origin or insecurity.

According to Dr. Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, published in 1898:

Why not call a spade a spade? Do not palliate sins by euphemisms.

“We call a nettle but a nettle, and the faults of fools but folly,”—Shakespeare: Coriolanus, ii. 1.

“I have learned to call wickedness by its own terms: a fig a fig, and a spade a spade,”—John Knox.

For your information John Knox was a preacher who lived in England from 1505 until 1572. Shake Spear, by the way, is also NOT a racial slur. He wrote plays and lived in England from 1564 to 1616.

Everybody knows that the british don't have the balls to originat a phrase with as controversial a meaning as you imply.

I was sure that the term had nothing to do with Africans or African Americans, it's used far too much to have survived the slur purge which has raged for over 30 years in this country. If you have access to a contradictory source I'm all ears, as my source is obviously not authoritative, though it sounds authentic.

I used the term completely unconsciously in my post. I guess I need an irony checker.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Sikander
I was sure that the term had nothing to do with Africans or African Americans, it's used far too much to have survived the slur purge which has raged for over 30 years in this country. If you have access to a contradictory source I'm all ears, as my source is obviously not authoritative, though it sounds authentic.

I used the term completely unconsciously in my post. I guess I need an irony checker.

Bah, I read it somewhere, but I'm not going to go digging for it now; I wouldn't even know where to begin to look.

And I never thought or meant to imply that you used that phrase because of its racial implications... don't sweat it.

Irony checker.

[Sikander]

Gunymeyer,

Well thanks. I am opinionated to an extent about religion and culture. These are constructs and deserve scrutiny, and criticism in many cases. I just plain don't believe in the idea of race though. The fact that so many people have a hard time distinguishing between race and culture causes a lot of problems for me, and really for all of society. Differring values and the attempts to resolve or understand those differences are an important part of the growth of cultures, and their improvement. Race is a big stinkbomb in what should be a valuable process.

Anyway, I don't want to give any more credence to the idea of race than I have to, and using a slur is a great way to thwart myself.

[KrazyHorse]

to Cali for making obviously ignorant statements which are based on "facts" probably dreamed up by some Grand Dragon uber-Cracker.

It's not his fault, though; he was born below the equator after all.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
to Cali for making obviously ignorant statements which are based on "facts" probably dreamed up by some Grand Dragon uber-Cracker.

It's not his fault, though; he was born below the equator after all.

I can see its not possible for anyone to discuss this with me on here without insults and name calling. Thats a pity...

[KrazyHorse]

It's got as much of a factual basis as your statements do. Doesn't matter how you try to couch it, man; you're pulling racial stereotypes out of your ass, and it's offensive.

[Sandman]

I hope skin colour goes the way of hair colour.

[Ramo]

A more likely but by no means definitive location for the original more or less cohesive Indo-European language to have been born is the area East of the Caspian Sea or the Pontic Steppe.

You're just being pedantic! The definition completely rests upon where Anatolia begins and the rest of Asia ends. "Eastern Anatolia" might be slightly too far West, but it's close enough damnit!

This is all heavy theorizing of course, any definitive statement on the matter like you make above is completely unsupportable

Grimm's Law? Anyways, it's certainly definitive enough to cast serious doubt on Cali's Nordic ubermenschentheory, if not completely invalidate it.

My point is that the PIE's are most likely not the same people who lived in Ice-age era Europe.

since there are very good reasons to think that the Celts, Germans, Balts and Slavs (ie the folks who make up the majority of Europes population today) lived for a long while in close proximity to one another

Not much more than a few thousand years. Or are you referring to another linguistic theory.

and that their initial appearances on the historic stage place them far from Eastern Anatolia which was the domain of another earlier split off branch of the family.

Of course. We're not talking about a literary civilization. How would they enter history before they learn how to write down one (or come in contact with a literary civ)?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sandman
I hope skin colour goes the way of hair colour.

You mean as in, gentlemen prefer blondes?

Hair color prejudice is very real, though easily corrected with bleaching one's hair. I don't think they've developed an inexpensive treamtent for colored skin yet.

[Drekkus]

This is a joke I just received on my mail. Is this racist? Or just Anti-bush?


> George W. Bush and Tony Blair are standing and talking together in a bar. The bartender asks them what they are talking about. "We are planning world war 3", answers Bush. "Ooohh" says the bartender. "What are the plans"? "We will kill 14 millions of Muslims and 1 consultant", Bush replies. The bartender looks very surprised and after a few seconds he says: "1 consultant ??? Why ??" George W. Bush puts his hand on the shoulder of Tony Blair, and says "What did I tell you? Nobody will ask about the Muslims!"

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I don't think they've developed an inexpensive treamtent for colored skin yet.

Yeah, only Michael Jackson has been able to afford it so far!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drekkus
This is a joke I just received on my mail. Is this racist? Or just Anti-bush?

How 'bout just plain funny?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Is racism always hate? I would say no. I posit that involves actions or ideas that are solely based on a person's race, such that these actions and ideas either indicate or imply said person to be superior or inferior.

It is not racism when characteristics are used merely for distinction.

So saying that "blacks are great athletes" (while other races are not as good) is racism, while saying "US pro sports are dominated by blacks" is not.

But not all blacks are great athletes. And not all US pro sports are dominated by blacks. Any racism eventually leads to some sort of hatred or dislike, since you are placing values on people based on the color of their skin. And those values will not be the same in all aspects, thus making one better than the other in your mind. Thus, you justify a pecking order, which does not conform to reality. This leads to jealousy, resentment, and hatred.

[Caligastia]

I never judge individuals based on race. No race has the monopoly on idiots or geniuses.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Caligastia
I never judge individuals based on race. No race has the monopoly on idiots.

Exactly, that monopoly is held by me. I'm so tired that I just had edited my last post 3 times! However, the original post would have led this thread down an interesting path.

[Caligastia]

any chance you could repost it?

[DaShi]

No, because I can't and don't want to defend it.

[Caligastia]

Pleeeeeeeeeease!!!

[DaShi]

Thinking back on it, it really wasn't so bad. It just lends itself to bad conclusions. Just replace athletes with racists.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Caligastia
I never judge individuals based on race. No race has the monopoly on idiots or geniuses.

I think the point here is that, not only does no race have a monopoly on idiots or geniuses, but that no race has a higher proportion of idiots or geniuses (if we remove environmental influences).

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by ranskaldan


I think the point here is that, not only does no race have a monopoly on idiots or geniuses, but that no race has a higher proportion of idiots or geniuses (if we remove environmental influences).

As nice as that would be its just not true. Different races have different abilities, but I would never hold that against anyone and neither would I make an assumption on an individual based on race.

[Ramo]

"I think the point here is that, not only does no race have a monopoly on idiots or geniuses, but that no race has a higher proportion of idiots or geniuses (if we remove environmental influences)."

As nice as that would be its just not true. Different races have different abilities, but I would never hold that against anyone and neither would I make an assumption on an individual based on race.

Total bullshit!

You still haven't provided any evidence for your absurd assertion that cold environments select more intelligent humans, nor have you refuted my statements.

[Caligastia]

I really cant be bothered. Im not going to change your mind and you wont change mine. I have researched both sides of this and my conclusions are not based on hate of any kind.

Peace

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Caligastia


As nice as that would be its just not true. Different races have different abilities.

Exactly. That's the "racism" that a lot of people have problems with.

Besides

1) Why did civilization start in, of all places, the Fertile Crescent, a semi-arid area far from cold?

2) Why aren't Inuit ruling the world now?

3) Why, anyway, is a cold environment supposed to select for higher intelligence, other than that it calls for clothing making skills? Isn't a tropical world just as hazardous as a subpolar environment?

4) Why is it that of 6000 years of human history, the North Europeans have enjoyed dominance for only 300 years?

[Ramo]

I really cant be bothered. Im not going to change your mind and you wont change mine. I have researched both sides of this and my conclusions are not based on hate of any kind.

Would you mind sharing this so-called "research" with us, since you're parading this ignorant tripe in a public forum?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Caligastia
I really cant be bothered. Im not going to change your mind and you wont change mine. I have researched both sides of this and my conclusions are not based on hate of any kind.

In other words, he has no facts to support his arguments. As for his research, it was probably done while sitting in a bar or watching afternoon television.

His conclusions are not based on hate. He just thinks that black people are stupid, that black people are fat, but physically superior to white and that white people are weak. Oh, and lets not forget that there are no bigots in New York city.

I have no doubt that he won't change his mind. His mind probably hasn't changed since kindergarten.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ramo


You're just being pedantic! The definition completely rests upon where Anatolia begins and the rest of Asia ends. "Eastern Anatolia" might be slightly too far West, but it's close enough damnit!

Come on Ramo, I was careful to not dismiss your theory as impossible even after you stated it like it was the revealed truth of God. I haven't seen a theory for the IE homeland which suggested Eastern Anatolia before, so I chose the closest area for which I had seen a theory, which is East of the Caspian sea. There are a lot of theories, and precious little evidence. You might even be correct, but the stuff I have read doesn't point that way.

Originally posted by Ramo
Grimm's Law? Anyways, it's certainly definitive enough to cast serious doubt on Cali's Nordic ubermenschentheory, if not completely invalidate it.

My point is that the PIE's are most likely not the same people who lived in Ice-age era Europe.

Yea I agree, though we are way out there talking about the ice ages in the same conversation as the IEs. Trying to tag a language or a language group to a particular 'race' of human beings is a whole other mess. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the original IEs weren't caucasians for instance.

I think we agree that the whole idea of race is of precious little use to us. Aside from postulating that the Watusi would beat the Pygmy in basketball most of the time, ascribing abilities to certain races is more misleading than useful, and ignores and obfuscates the much more critical role played by culture.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Ramo


Total bullshit!

You still haven't provided any evidence for your absurd assertion that cold environments select more intelligent humans, nor have you refuted my statements.

David Landes used this idea in "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations" (a racists version of "Guns, Germs, and Steel"). His argument was that colder environments forced people to be more ingenius in order to survive. In short, bullocks.